Scripture or Chafer

[OldRegular]

In an earlier thread I had raised the question: What happens to the Jews after the Millennium?

The basis for this question was a statement by dispensationalist Lewis Sperry Chafer quoted by Charles C. Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism, page 39, as follows: “The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.” Charles C. Ryrie writes about the above statement Dispensationalism,page 39: “This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. The one who fails to distinguish Israel and the Church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctives; and the one who does will.”

I then posed the question: Assume that Chafer is correct. What happens to the Jews after the millennium?

Pastor Larry in post #14 of that thread responded, quoting Chafer, as follows:

“Every covenant, promise, and provision for Israel is earthly, and they continue as a nation with the earth when it is created new. Every covenant or promise for the church is for a heavenly reality, and she continues in heavenly citizenship when the heavens are recreated.”

[The quote is cited in BSac 145 (July 88): 275. The Chafer quote is referenced to Chafer's Systematic Theology, 4:47.]

This raises another question.

Scripture states in Revelation 21:1-10:

1. And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
6. And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
7. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
8. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
9. And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife.
10. And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

Now the Holy City, the New Jerusalem, the Bride of Jesus Christ, the Church, is pictured as coming down out of heaven to the New Earth. This contradicts Chafer’s statement above that only the Jews will inhabit the New Earth, to wit:

“Every covenant, promise, and provision for Israel is earthly, and they continue as a nation with the earth when it is created new. Every covenant or promise for the church is for a heavenly reality, and she continues in heavenly citizenship when the heavens are recreated.”

It should be noted that the metaphorical description of the Holy City [Revelation 21:11-21] has the names of the twelve tribes of Israel inscribed in the gates of the City. Strange if Israel, the earthly people, is eternally separate from the Church, the heavenly people, who according to Scripture dwell on the New Earth.

So which is correct, Scripture or Chafer? Or could it just possibly be that the Church, the Bride of Jesus Christ, includes all redeemed of all time, including believing Israel of the Old Testament. That is what the Southern Baptist Faith and Message states.

 

[Jim1999]

Mate, you are forgetting the "parenthetical church age"; the after thought of Israel and God's plan of redemption and reward. Even Job said he knew that he would stand on the earth and see God.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[OldRegular]

Mate, you are forgetting the "parenthetical church age"; the after thought of Israel and God's plan of redemption and reward. Even Job said he knew that he would stand on the earth and see God.

Cheers,

Jim

And Job was not a Jew was he?

 

[JDale]

OH I get it!

We've finally gotten past attacking the Grace Evangelical bunch for their heresy, and now we're going after the Dispensationalists! Ahhh!

Because obviously, no "real" Baptist could possibly be Dispensational. No real Baptist could believe in distinctions between Israel and the Church and that they had varying roles in God's unfolding plan of redemption! No! And what's all this stuff about an earthly Kingdom when it's obviously meant to be spiritual, allegorical! And that rapture nonsense! Ha!

No, no real Baptist could be Dispensational. In fact, no one could believe any differently than....You?

Shunning the brethren and shooting the wounded... Sometimes I think that ought to be the slogan for Baptists. Not sure we'll ever get past it.

 

[LeBuick]

I'll be honest OR, I don't don't how to view Israel today much less how to envision them in the coming Kingdom. I do know 144K will be saved but are they currently saved (Heb 11:1) or will they be saved in the future (Tribulation), I don't know. Here is why I don't know;

All of the promises made to Israel were in the first Covenant. Christ came, shed His blood and mediated a new covenant. All the promises God made to Israel were fulfilled in the earthly mission of Christ. However, they rejected the fulfillment of the old and mediator of the new. So the question I have about Israel is how many times do they expect God to continually fulfill the old covenant?

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The Church really belongs to Israel but they're not in it. I don't know what the future holds but I do know there is only one way of salvation and His name is Jesus.

 

[OldRegular]

I'll be honest OR, I don't don't how to view Israel today much less how to envision them in the coming Kingdom.

Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

LeBuick

I must admit that I don't understand how to view Israel. Many people who are not dispensationalists believe that because Israel or the Jews have maintained an ethnic identity they are still in God's plan. However, there are many peoples in the world who have maintained their ethnic identy. Many non dispensationalists also believe there will be a mass conversion of the Jews in the "last days". I do not. I believe that God saves people as individuals not as groups or "en mass".

I believe that when Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, a descendant of David, a descendant of Judah, a descendant of Abraham and then crucified by the Romans at the instigation of the Jews, their work in God's plan of redemption was complete. I believe this is shown without doubt in the passage Hebrews 8:13 you highlighted in your post.

I recognize this discussion is probably off topic but your post gave me an opportunity to express some of my beliefs.

 

[LeBuick]

I believe that when Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, a descendant of David, a descendant of Judah, a descendant of Abraham and then crucified by the Romans at the instigation of the Jews, their work in God's plan of redemption was complete. I believe this is shown without doubt in the passage Hebrews 8:13 you highlighted in your post.

I recognize this discussion is probably off topic but your post gave me an opportunity to express some of my beliefs.

I agree, and I also forgot the part of the two genealogies that so happen to make two Gospels proving the lineage of Christ back to David, Abraham and Adam. I guess one of the dispensationalist will be along to explain it.

I think this is on topic, because if the old covenant was fulfilled, then all the promises were already fulfilled and God has no more promises to Israel except via the New Covenant which is the Church. I have likewise heard the theories that Israel can repent at the second coming, but again, like you I believe salvation through Christ is individual and not national.

 

[OldRegular]

OH I get it!

We've finally gotten past attacking the Grace Evangelical bunch for their heresy, and now we're going after the Dispensationalists! Ahhh!

Because obviously, no "real" Baptist could possibly be Dispensational. No real Baptist could believe in distinctions between Israel and the Church and that they had varying roles in God's unfolding plan of redemption! No! And what's all this stuff about an earthly Kingdom when it's obviously meant to be spiritual, allegorical! And that rapture nonsense! Ha!

No, no real Baptist could be Dispensational. In fact, no one could believe any differently than....You?

Shunning the brethren and shooting the wounded... Sometimes I think that ought to be the slogan for Baptists. Not sure we'll ever get past it.

Never heard of the Grace Evangelical bunch until the other day when I read one of the stickies. I had heard of Zane Hodges belief on salvation which I thought was ridiculous.

I know some good Baptists who are dispensational. they just happen to be wrong, not only in their ecclesiology but also their eschatology.

 

[Marcia]

I think the OP question is unnecessarily rude, even offensive.

OldRegular, you are not convincing anyone to your view, only alienating people like me.

 

[OldRegular]

I think the OP question is unnecessarily rude, even offensive.

OldRegular, you are not convincing anyone to your view, only alienating people like me.

Marcia

The responses I have made to your posts have been very considerate of your opinions. I have very courteously tried to explain my beliefs to you. If you can point to any response to you that has been less than courteous I would appreciate you pointing it out.

I am sorry that you find the OP unnecessarily rude, even offensive. Can you quote one statement I made in the OP that is offensive or rude?

 

[Marcia]

Marcia

The responses I have made to your posts have been very considerate of your opinions. I have very courteously tried to explain my beliefs to you. If you can point to any response to you that has been less than courteous I would appreciate you pointing it out.

I am sorry that you find the OP unnecessarily rude, even offensive. Can you quote one statement I made in the OP that is offensive or rude?

No, I am not saying that your posts to me have been rude. You have been very polite to me and I truly appreciate it. But you are really hammering a view you disagree with a little too much, imo. However, you have a right to do so, just as I can express that I think you are doing that.

It's the title of the thread that got to me; I think it was just one too many.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

If anyone is truly interested in dispensational eschatology they would want to read"Things to Come", by Dwight J. Pentecost This is the text book used in most dispy Bible colleges and seminaries.

 

[OldRegular]

If anyone is truly interested in dispensational eschatology they would want to read"Things to Come", by Dwight J. Pentecost This is the text book used in most dispy Bible colleges and seminaries.

Unfortunately most people who believe in the so-called pre trib rapture don't understand the view of dispensationalists regarding the "parenthesis" Church.

 

[Jim1999]

Obviously one would suggest reading Dwight Pentecost. He was a longtime professor at Dallas Theological Seminary..the home of dispensationalism and not a Baptist school, I might add.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Pastor Larry]

Unfortunately most people who believe in the so-called pre trib rapture don't understand the view of dispensationalists regarding the "parenthesis" Church.

And some who critique dispensationalism don't understand it either.

 

[swaimj]

Which is correct, Chafer or Scripture?

Let's change the question: Which is infallible, Chafer or scripture? The answer, of course, is scripture.

Did Chafer have perfect understanding of scripture? No, of course not.

That is why modern dispensationalists do not always agree with Chafer. He was fallible.

That is why modern dispensationalists do not always agree with each other. We are all fallible.

So, why do dispensationalists disagree with Old Regular? Is it because OR is infallible? Please, sir, a little humility would enable a better discussion.

 

[Jim1999]

I have a lot of dispensationalists books, including Chafer's theological texts. Many a sermon came out of those books. I don't think anyone from the opposite camp doubts the Christian beliefs of those people as much as we might disagree with the eschatology and some concepts. When I first came out the Church of England I was a member of a Plymouth Brethren Gospel Hall and was baptized under them. I learned something about their teachings. At the time I was historical premil and leaned to amil in the 60's. So, yes, I do have some understanding of dispensationalism...but of the old school, I admit. I also admit that I have all of Clarence Larkin's books and charts, the mainstay of the old PB's.

Not all of us are totally ignorant of the vews. I would that all men were like me,,,,,,,,,,,wait,,no I don't. Just kidding.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[swaimj]

Jim1999, Here is a statement made by Old Regular on this thread:

I know some good Baptists who are dispensational. they just happen to be wrong, not only in their ecclesiology but also their eschatology.

What is one to make of this statement? Is it an argument for a position? No. Is it evidence for a position? No. It tells us what OR thinks, but nothing as to why he thinks it. It is a statement that is neither provable or refutable. Baptist Board would be such a nicer and more useful place if statements like this were not allowed. Unfortunately, many threads are full of such statements. This is a discussion board and the above quote simply does not qualify as discussion.

 

[Jim1999]

I pastored a number of churches where dispensationalism was a key doctrine. I managed to preach the word without getting into deep water. I avoided the use of titles and no backs were raised. We discussed the different views, but never debated them.

Most of my church friends were dispensational. I am not going to name some of them because one might get the notion I am name-dropping, but a few years back there were quite a few well known men in the field. We can learn to get along, and we can learn when someone has a serious viewpoint, but is not contentious about it.

Frankly, I have been all through these battles over the years and they are not new to me. I do need some entertainment though....:saint:

Cheers, and bless,

Jim

 

[OldRegular]

Jim1999, Here is a statement made by Old Regular on this thread:

Posted by OldRegular
I know some good Baptists who are dispensational. they just happen to be wrong, not only in their ecclesiology but also their eschatology.

What is one to make of this statement? Is it an argument for a position? No. Is it evidence for a position? No. It tells us what OR thinks, but nothing as to why he thinks it. It is a statement that is neither provable or refutable. Baptist Board would be such a nicer and more useful place if statements like this were not allowed. Unfortunately, many threads are full of such statements. This is a discussion board and the above quote simply does not qualify as discussion.

It is a poor Christian who isn't convinced that what he believes is Biblical. Sadly some are in perfect agreement with the last person they hear or read. My beliefs are based on the study of Scripture and are consistent with historic Baptist doctrine. I have seen little humility from most dispensationalists, on this forum or elsewhere. Their general opinion of those who hold to the historic Baptist doctrine on eschatology and the church [which by the way is the current Southern Baptist doctrine of the Church] is that they are liberals and their doctrine unbiblical. One dispensationalist on this forum suggested among other things that I was a theistic evolutionist.